Mobilization for Climate Justice

Archive for November, 2010

Español debajo

MEDIA ADVISORY
Global Justice Ecology Project with the Indigenous Environmental Network, Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) and the ETC Group present:

Press Conference Today:
FALSE SOLUTIONS TO CLIMATE CHANGE
Nuclear, Coal, Geoengineering and CDM Funding

WHEN: Today, November 30, 2010 /18:00 hrs (6 pm)WHERE: Moon Palace,Luna Room 2

WHO: Nikke Alex – Diné, USA is Diné (Navajo) originally from Dilcon, Arizona (Navajo Nation).  She is the Executive Director of Black Mesa Water Coalition, an environmental justice organization based in Flagstaff, AZ. Nikke has carried out independent research about the impact of both uranium and coal mining on the Navajo people. Nikke has worked at the US Department of Justice in the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program and the US Environmental Protection Agency with the Tribal Science Council in Washington, DC.

Silvia Ribeiro – Mexico is the Latin America Director for the ETC Group, an international civil society organization that monitors the environmental and social impacts of new technologies, including biotechnology, geoengineering and nanotechnology. ETC Group was key in providing analysis and information that led the UN Convention on Biological Diversity to declare a moratorium on climate manipulation technologies (geoengineering). In Cancun, ETC Group is focusing on geoengineering, synthetic biology and other climate-related technologies, as well as aspects related to food sovereignty (agriculture, patents, climate ready genes, biomass appropriation).

Josefat Flores Montiel – Mexico is a member of ProSalud Apaxco-Atotonilco, an organization created after the tragic death of eleven workers to toxic gases released by a waste-fueled cement kiln on the banks of the Rio Salado in the Mexican State of Hidalgo, in the area known as Latin America’s most toxic industrial corridor. Josefat will share his testimony as an example of the dangerous contradictions within the Clean Development Mechanism.

Contact: Jeff Conant, Global Justice Ecology Project +52.998.165.7349  (English and Spanish)
Melina Laboucan-Massimo, Indigenous Environmental Network + 998.108.0748 (English and Spanish)
Magdalena Donoso, Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives +52.984.139.4547 (English and Spanish)

AVISO DE PRENSA
El Proyecto Justicia Ecológica Mundial, con la red indigena ambiental, la red global para alternativas a la incineradores, y el grupo ETC presentan:

Conferencia de prensa hoy: Soluciones Falsa al Cambio Climatico
Nuclear, Carbón, Geoenginería, y Financimiento del Mechanismo de Desarollo Limpio

CUANDO: Hoy,30 noviembre, 2010 /18:00 hrs (6 pm)DONDE:Moon Palace, Luna Room 2

QUIEN: Nikke Alex – Diné, USA, Diné (Navajo) es la directora ejecutiva del Black Mesa Water Coalition, una organziacion de justicia ambiental basado en Arizona, eeuu. Flagstaff, AZ. Nikke ha llevado a cabo investigacione sobre los impactos del uraio y carbon en el pueblo Navajo, y ha trabajado con el departamento de justicia del eeuu en el programa de compensacion de material radioactiva, y con la agencia de proteccion ambiental.

Silvia Ribeiro – Mexico es la directora latinoamericana del Grupo ETC, una organizacion de sociedad civil que monitorea los impactos sociales e ambientales de tecnologias nuevas, incluyendo la biotecnologua, la geoengineria, y la nanotecnologia.

Josefat Flores Montiel – Mexico Josafat Flores Montiel es un miembro de ProSalud Apaxco-Atotonilco, una organización que se creo despues de la tragédia de once muertos por gases toxicos que escaparon de un horno de concreto que se ubica a un costado del Rio Salado en el estado de Hidalgo, Mexico, en la area reconocida como el corredor industrial mas toxico de América Latina. Josefat compartirá su testimonio como un ejemplo de las peligrosas contradicciones dentro del mecanismo de desarollo limpio.

Contactos: Jeff Conant, Global Justice Ecology Project +52.998.165.7349  (español y inglés)
Melina Laboucan-Massimo, Indigenous Environmental Network + 998.108.0748  (español y inglés)
Magdalena Donoso, Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives +52.984.139.4547  (español y inglés)

Article source: GJEP Climate Connections Blog

From Global Forest Coalition

Español debajo

MEDIA ADVISORY: November 30, 2010

PRESS CONFERENCE: Global Forest Coalition Report Reveals that Excessive Demand for Wood is the Major Cause of Deforestation

What: Press conference by the Global Forest Coalition about the underlying causes of forest loss and the motivations for forest protection

When: Wednesday, 1 December 2010, 12:00 – 12:30

Where: Room 2 (Luna), Moon Palace Aztec Expo Centre, Cancun

Who: Simone Lovera, Executive Director, and other members of Global Forest Coalition

The Global Forest Coalition will launch a report about the underlying causes of deforestation and forest degradation, and the real incentives for successful forest conservation and restoration by Indigenous Peoples and land-based communities.

Download the full report at:

English:  www.globalforestcoalition.org/img/userpics/File/REDD/Report-Getting-to-the-roots.pdf

Spanish: www.globalforestcoalition.org/img/userpics/File/REDD/La-raiz-del-problema.pdf

French: www.globalforestcoalition.org/img/userpics/File/REDD/Report-Les-racines-du-probleme.pdf

Contacts in Cancun:

Jeff Conant: + 52 998 165 7349

jc@globaljusticeecology.org

Simone Lovera: +52 998 197 0859

simone.lovera@globalforestcoalition.org

Aviso de Prensa

30 noviembre, 2010

Conferencia de prensa: Nuevo reporte por la Coalición Global de Bosques revela que demanda excesiva para madera es la causa mayor de la deforestación.

Que: Conferencia de prensa por la Coalición Global de Bosques sobre las causas mayors del perdido de bosques y las motivaciones reales para su proteccion.

Cuando: Miercoles, 1 diciembre 2010, 12:00 – 12:30

Donde: Sala 2 (Luna), Moon Palace, Aztec Expo Centre, Cancun

Quien: Simone Lovera, Directora ejecutiva, y otros miembros de la Coalición Global de Bosques

La Coalición Global de Bosques lanzará su nuevo reporte sobre las cuasas mayors de la deforestacion y la degradacion de bosques y las motivaciones reales para su conservacion y proteccion por pueblos indigenas y comunidades rurales.

Vean el reporte complete en internet al:

Inglés:  www.globalforestcoalition.org/img/userpics/File/REDD/Report-Getting-to-the-roots.pdf

Español: www.globalforestcoalition.org/img/userpics/File/REDD/La-raiz-del-problema.pdf

Francés: www.globalforestcoalition.org/img/userpics/File/REDD/Report-Les-racines-du-probleme.pdf

Contactos en Cancun:

Jeff Conant: + 52 998 165 7349

jc@globaljusticeecology.org

Simone Lovera: +52 998 197 0859

simone.lovera@globalforestcoalition.org

Article source: GJEP Climate Connections Blog

By Anne Petermann, Global Justice Ecology Project

On November 25^th in Denmark, Stine and Tannie, friends of GJEP Co-Director/ Strategist Orin Langelle and myself, were sentenced to four months of probation for violating Denmark’s anti-terrorism laws. Their crime: organizing for climate justice under the auspices of the international Climate Justice Action alliance.

They were arrested and convicted for being effective spokespeople and organizers.  For being strong women who stood up against the threats of state repression on behalf of the billions of voiceless people shut out of the UN Climate Negotiations in Copenhagen.  The people already suffering the impacts of the climate crisis—floods, droughts, the very ground beneath some communities melting away before their very eyes.

I had first met Stine in Copenhagen in September 2008 at the meeting where Climate Justice Action was founded.  More than 120 activists from around the world had come together to lay the groundwork for massive protests at the Copenhagen climate talks in December 2009. Orin and I got to know her better at subsequent CJA meetings in Poznan, Poland, Belem, Brazil and again in Copenhagen in March 2009.  Then, on December 3^rd, when Orin and I emerged exhausted and bleary from our international flight to Copenhagen for the climate talks, Stine and Tannie met us with hugs at the airport, video camera in hand, and kindly led our exhausted selves from the airport to our hotel.  We spent the next several days in public spaces finalizing plans for the Reclaim Power action and playing “spot the undercover cop,” which most times was not difficult as they were straining so hard to hear us that they nearly fell off their chairs.

Stine, being Danish, was one of the foremost spokespeople for Climate Justice Action.  Over the months leading up to the Copenhagen Climate COP, she explained the logic of the “Reclaim Power” action that was to take place on December 16^th—the day the high level Ministers arrived.  At this action, observers, delegates and Indigenous Peoples marched out of the failing climate talks at the Bella Center in protest not only of their ineffectiveness, but of their outright corruption by industry and the market.  At the same time that the halls of the Bella Center echoed with the booming voices of those reclaiming their power on the inside, Stine and Tannie were leading a contingent of demonstrators on the outside who were marching toward the Bella Center with the intent of meeting those marching out at the security fence that divided the sanctioned or “accredited” participants from those who were not.  The concept of the action was that those disaffected participants from the inside would meet the excluded from the outside and hold a “Peoples’ Assembly” at the fence where participants could discuss real solutions to the climate crisis and strategize ways to make real change.   Security, however, had other ideas and forcibly stopped both contingents before they met at the fence—using truncheons, pepper spray and whatever other “less lethal” weapons they happened to have on hand.

At that moment, the UNFCCC exposed its true self.  It had for years become increasingly undemocratic and repressive and now it was showing the world through this over zealous heavy-handed response to the simple demand of people to meet and talk.  Exposing the UNFCCC was one of the intentions of the action.  We knew the UNFCCC would show its true colors if confronted with people powerfully demanding justice and free speech.

Though she led the march on the outside, Stine was, in fact, accredited by Global Justice Ecology Project and had participated on the inside of the COP—in particular the day before the march out where she spoke at a Climate Justice Action and Climate Justice Now! joint press conference that GJEP had helped arrange.

We knew the “Reclaim Power” action would be a success when Stine walked into the packed press conference room and the cameras began flashing.

But for the action, Stine chose to be part of the group marching to the Bella Center from the outside.  She and Tannie stood on the sound truck and spoke to the crowd about the importance of the action and of standing up for climate justice in the face of oppressive climate negotiations where business and the markets reigned supreme.  When they approached the fence surrounding the Bella Center, they were violently yanked off of the truck by Danish security and arrested under terrorism charges for the heresy of insisting that people have a say in the increasingly urgent issue of the climate crisis.

The timing of the sentencing—nearly a full year after the so-called “crime” was committed, was undoubtedly to warn any ne’er-do-wells at the 2010 Cancun Climate Conference of the consequences of messing with the UN.  The UNFCCC does not want the image of being seen as a target for major protests by “civil society” groups and people around the world who are fed up with their inaction.

I first saw them demonstrate this uneasiness at the Climate Conference (COP-14) in December 2008.  During this climate conference, Climate Justice Now!—the alliance of organizations representing social movements, small farmers, fisherfolk and others on the front lines of the climate crisis—held a press conference.  At this press conference it was announced that Climate Justice Now! was joining together with Climate Justice Action to mobilize protests around the world on the opening day of the Copenhagen Climate conference (COP-15) the next year.  Coincidentally, this COP was timed to open on November 30, 2009—the ten-year anniversary of the “Battle of Seattle” where the meetings of the World Trade Organization were shut down by massive street protests.  This was where “Teamsters and Turtles” united to demonstrate the power that could be wielded when movements united to confront their common root causes—in that case, the WTO—the vilified symbol of corporate globalization, or neoliberalism.  CJN announced at the press conference in Poznan that we would be using that auspicious anniversary to organize protests around the world that would expose the similarities between the World Trade Organization and the UNFCCC—which had become the “World Carbon Trade Organization.”

The very next day, the UNFCCC Secretariat announced a change in plans.  COP-15 in Copenhagen would begin exactly one week later—on December 7^th.

We had shown them our intentions and they had backed down.

The build up for the actions in Copenhagen created a rowdy spirit of resistance during the negotiations.  The African delegations walked out of the plenary chanting, “Two degrees is suicide!” when developed countries stated they would be unable to agree to any action that would limit overall global warming to less than two degrees.  Indigenous activists marched against the lack of respect given to the rights of Indigenous Peoples—especially with regard to the REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) scheme.  The Youth contingent protested almost daily.  When Obama waltzed into the talks to announce his secretly negotiated “Copenhagen Accord,” even the press booed.  The Secretariat could see the writing on the wall when they would have to face off against Latin America’s brand of resistance the next year at COP-16, which was scheduled for Mexico City.

Their response was to move the talks to Cancun, ironically the place where the WTO had met fierce resistance in 2003 and where Lee Kyung Hae, a South Korean farmer, committed suicide by plunging a knife into his heart atop the barricade protecting the WTO from the people.  His act of martyrdom helped kill the talks that year, which fell apart largely over agriculture.

Cancun, overall, is much more defensible than Mexico City and the location chosen by the Secretariat for COP-16 has multiple benefits.  First it is very small, allowing them to reduce the number of observers by around 40% and the number of press by over half.  Second, it is on the beach south of the hotel zone in Cancun, and has a four kilometer radius perimeter.  It will be heavily patrolled and almost impossible to approach without official sanction—aka the UNFCCC accreditation badge.

Before we even got onto the plane to head to Cancun, we were told by allies on the ground that the city is already under siege with military force visible everywhere.

Once more we threatened the UNFCCC with our collective power, and again they chose to hunker down behind fences and military.

Civil society participation at this COP has become almost impossible.  The Secretariat has organized the logistics so that the important delegates are all staying on site at the Moon Palace—site of the negotiations.  The rest of the activities take place at the Cancun Messe, a 20 minute bus ride farther away—when there is no traffic.

In order for the rest of us to access the Moon Palace without taking a $300P taxi is to take the shuttle bus which bypasses the Moon Palace and takes its cargo further south to the Cancun Messe.  From there, one must catch Bus #9 (Number nine, Number nine, Number nine…) back to the Moon Palace.  On the day that I am writing this (from the bus), I have been on the bus for almost two hours and we are not even to the Cancun Messe yet.

AND we have been warned by some of the country delegates that Observers may lose their access to the buses from the Cancun Messe at any time if we misbehave.  They could just shut down bus access for non-Parties (that is NGOs, Indigenous Peoples’ Organizations, social movements, media…people, that is, as opposed to governments).

Business and the market control the UNFCCC and now they have shown their true colors.  We have exposed them.  Now it is time for us to take the power to act against climate change back into our own hands.  They cannot do it.  They will not allow us to participate.  We must find other means.

There is no other choice.

Article source: GJEP Climate Connections Blog

Source: La Via Campesina

We will unmask the Mexican governement: Gómez

(Ciudad de México, November 28^th) “The sixth Conference of Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP 16) is already seen as a failure that will affect the future of humanity, as its only result will be to strenghthen the intention of TNCs to divert money away from the climate crisis” stated Alberto Gomez from La Via Campesina international coordination.

“During the last moments of discussion, the proposals of the People’s Agreement signed in Cochabamba have been left aside. The trend is to favour carbon market and REDD (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation), this mechanism supports global privatisation of forests, jungles and territories.” explained Gomez.

“It is to be stated that during the negotiating process preceeding Cancun, the interest of the TNCs have prevailed giving a strong impulsion to a financial system that will impose merchandisation of the climate.”

“We do not agree with false solutions such as the carbon market because, far from reducing green house gases, it will sooner or later create a speculative system leading the world into another global financial crisis.”

“This is why La Via Campesina mobilises to denounce the irresponsibility of most of the governments who choose to support the capital rather than the interest of their nation and of humanity as a whole.” added Gómez.

“The international caravans will start on Sunday 28^th. Their aim is to show up the Mexican government, pointing out the environmental and social devastation caused by state policies which are against the interest of the majority of the people.”

“In the camp set up by La Via Campesina in Cancun from December 2^nd, various activites will be organised to denounce these policies and we ask all participants to put pressure on the Summit to adopt efficient measures against climate crisis such as those proposed in the People’s Agreement.”

“We declare that we, farmers, men and women, are necessary and useful to humanity. Our role is to produce food: we do it in a sustainable way and at the same time we cool down the planet. If we had at our disposal a different system to produce, distribute and consumme, we could end hunger and halt global warming.”

“Food sovereignty – concluded Gómez- is La Via Campesina’s alternative to capitalism which seeks to privatise even the air we breathe.”

Article source: GJEP Climate Connections Blog

Cross-posted from  La Via Campesina

(Mexico City, 28 November 2010) With its six caravans, La Via Campesina and its allies will propose alternatives to the climate crisis and to the lack of responsible agreement between governements. The caravans will stop at various places of peasant, social and environmental struggles, as well as at the world alternative Forum and for a large demonstration taking place in Cancun as well as in the rest of the world, on December 7th.

More than three thousand people are expected at the peasant and indigenous camp “For Life and environmental and social Justice” that La Via Campesina will set up in Cancun from December 2nd. This gathering will also include 70 international members of La Via Campesina travelling from other American countries, Africa, Asia and Europe.

The international caravans “For Life and environmental and social Justice” started their journey on Sunday 28th of November. Movements such as the National Assembly of People Affected by the Environment, the National Liberation Movement and the Mexican Electrician Union will also be part of the caravans. The caravans will leave from three different regions of the Mexican Republic heading for the Federal District, with the aim of showcasing a map of the social and environmental destruction in the country while spreading the message that peasant agriculture can feed the world population and contribute in cooling down the planet.

The first Caravan will leave from Cerro de San Pedro, San Luis Potosi, state in the center of Mexico, where Canadian mining compagnies operate illegal open-cast mining operations. The tour also includes the towns of Dolores Hidalgo, Pachuca and Ecatepec where the health of the population has deteriorated due to contaminated rivers, overexploitation of aquifers, and rampant urbanization.

The second caravan will start in El Salto, Jalisco, a community with serious problems of water contamination, because of industrial effluence from Guadalajara. In Morelia, Tupextepac, and Toluca, stages of the trip, a group of dissident teachers and the Mexican Union of Electricians will join the caravan. The union has been fighting for a year against redundancies of 44.000 members and the arbitrary closures of their places of work .

The third Caravan will leave from Acapulco harbour, in the southern state of Guerrero, on the Pacific coast. It will go to Agua Caliente, where people are fighting against the construction of a massive hydroelectric scheme which threatens the ecosystems of the region. The caravan will travel through towns such as Chilpacingo, Alpuyeca, and Cuernavaca, where peasant and environmental activists have been involved in crucial struggles.

The three caravans will arrive to Mexico City on November 29th. The following day, at 11.00 am, they will attend the Forum against Environmental Destruction, where Paul Nicholson, Tom Goldtooth, and Ana de Ita and many other will speak. In the afternoon, an International March “For Life and social and environmental Justice” will be organised from the Angel of Independence to the Zocalo.
On December 1st, the fourth Caravan will leave Mexico City for Cancun along with the two caravans from Oaxaca and Chiapas. They will arrive at the Via Campesina Camp on December 3rd in the afternoon.

There, the international peasant movement and their allies will express their rejection of the false solutions that only seek to profit from the environmental crisis, such as geo-engineering, agrofuels, REDD and the carbon market, the so-called clean development mechanisms and the World Bank intervention.
Finally, La Via Campesina will continue demanding that the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change adopt the resolutions of the World Conference of the People on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth, that took place in Cochabamba, Bolivia.

Program for the Press
**Dec. 4, 10.00am: Press conference: Arrival of caravans and program of La Via Campesina in Cancun. Start of the World Alternative Forum “For Life and Environmental and Social Justice.” Where: Camp.
**Dec. 5, 10.00am. Presentation of Report: “Overview of the Social and Environmental Devastation in Mexico.” Where: Camp.
**Dec. 6, 10.00am. Press conference: “Announcement of the massive rally in Cancun and world mobilization of the «THOUSANDS CANCUN.» Where: Camp.
**Dec. 6, 6pm. Press conference: “”Announcement of the massive rally in Cancun and world mobilization of the «THOUSANDS CANCUN.» Where: Moon Palace
**Dec. 9. “Meeting of the Bolivian President, Evo Morales, with members of the camp.” Place and time to be confirmed.
Address of the Vía Campesina Camp: Unidad Deportiva “Jacinto Canek,” avenidas Chitzen Itza y He-Zaba, zona Centro, Cancún.

Article source: GJEP Climate Connections Blog

Source: Climate Justice Now!

Espanol debajo

CANCUN, MEXICO– Members of Climate Justice Now!, a global network of more than 140 movements and organizations committed to the fight for social, ecological and gender justice, spoke out this morning at the start of the 2010 16^th Conference of the Parties (COP16) with their demands for the negotiations.

Climate Justice Now! (CJN!) seeks:

• “System change, not climate change,” a shift from business as usual in climate change mitigation.
• “Yes” to the Cochabamba Peoples’ Agreement, which includes a revocation of the Copenhagen Accord and consideration for the rights of Mother Earth.
• “No” to REDD, the United Nations Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries (REDD).
• The inclusion of grassroots solutions into global intergovernmental policymaking.

Silvia Ribeiro, of ETC Group in Mexico, acknowledged the advancements made last spring at the Cochabumba Peoples Conference in Bolivia, a gathering of 35,000 participants from 142 countries. “We said clearly that we need real reductions at source,” she said, “not connected to market mechanisms or justifying the introduction of dangerous new technologies.”

Speaking out against World Bank involvement in climate mitigation, Lidy Nacpil, Regional Coordinator for the Asian Pacific Movement for Debt and Development and Jubilee South in the Philippines said, “The World Bank’s governance structures are undiplomatic. Developing countries are least represented inside the bank.

“Developing countries,” continued Nacpil, “contribute little to global emissions and therefore can contribute little to emission reductions—yet we suffer the brunt of the impacts.”

CJN! will hold its next press conference on Thursday, 2 December, 9:30- 10:00 a.m. in conference room 2, Luna, in the Aztec Expo Center at Moon Palace, Cancun, Mexico.

________________________________________________

Justicia Climática Ahora! Pide Justicia social en COP16

CANCÚN, MÉXICO – Miembros de Justicia Climática Ahora!, una red global de más de 140 movimientos y organizaciones comprometidas con la lucha social, ecológica y de género, habló esta mañana al inicio de la 16ª Conferencia de Partes (COP16) de 2010 sobre sus peticiones para las negociaciones.

Justicia Climática Ahora! (CJN! Por sus siglas en Ingles) busca:

• “Cambiemos el sistema, no el clima,” un cambio del negocio como de costumbre en la mitigación del cambio de clima.
• “Sí” al Acuerdo de los Pueblos de Cochabamba, que incluye una revocación al Acuerdo de Copenhagen y la consideración de los derechos de la Madre Tierra.
• “No” a REDD, el Programa Colaborativo de las Naciones Unidas para Reducir las Emisiones derivadas de la Deforestación y la Degradación de los Bosques en los Países en Desarrollo (REDD)
• La inclusión de soluciones de base en la formulación de políticas globales intergubernamentales.

Silvia Ribeiro, del Grupo ETC en México, reconoció los avances que se hicieron la pasada primavera en la Conferencia de los Pueblos de Cochabamba en Bolivia, una reunión de 35,000 participantes de 142 países. “Dijimos claramente que necesitamos reducciones verdaderas desde la fuente,” ella mencionó, “no conectadas a mecanismos de mercados o justificando la entrada de nuevas tecnologías peligrosas”

Hablando en contra de la participación del Banco Mundial en la mitigación climática, Lidy Nacpil, Coordinadora Regional del Movimiento de Asia y del Pacífico para la Deuda y el Desarrollo y del Jubileo Sur (Jubilee South) en Filipinas dijo, “Las estructuras del gobierno del Banco Mundial son poco diplomáticas. Los países en desarrollo son los menos representados dentro del Banco.”

“Los países en desarrollo,” continuó Nacpil, “contribuyen poco a las emisiones globales y por eso pueden contribuir poco a las reducciones de las emisiones- aún así sufrimos la parte más fuerte de los impactos.

Justicia Climática Ahora (CJN!) tendrá su siguiente conferecia de prence el Jueves, 2 de Diciembre, 9:30-10:00 a.m en la sala de conferencia 2, Luna, en el Aztec Expo Center en el Moon Palace, Cancún, México.

Article source: GJEP Climate Connections Blog

Cross-posted from ClimateStoryTellers.org

By Subhankar Banerjee

29 November, 2010

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) COP16 opens this week in Cancún, Mexico to discuss green business (November 29 – December 10, 2010). No one is expecting any global climate treaty to be signed at this conference. However there is hope that some progress could be made.

Two articles in particular caught my attention over the weekend. The first article was published in Grist is by Jennifer Morgan, Climate Director at the World Resources Institute, a think tank based in Washington, DC. The title of her article is “What can climate negotiations achieve in Cancun?” She writes “Establish a REDD+ mechanism” in a section titled “What decisions can be made in Cancun?” What was striking for me was the title of the following section, “What other issues remain contentious?” Clearly REDD+ is not a contentious issue for Morgan. The second article was by Kate Sheppard titled “Cancun or Bust” published in Mother Jones. Her penultimate paragraph reads, “Despite the very low expectations for a major agreement, there are major areas where the observers expect to see progress this year: … the creation of programs to prevent deforestation (known as Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation, or REDD). Progress in those areas would go a long way toward building trust and partnership between nations, observers say.”

I bet you’re wondering—what the heck is REDD?

Almost a year ago I went to Copenhagen for the last round of the UN Climate Conference COP15 with Sarah James, Gwich’in activist and current board chair of the Gwich’in Steering Committee in Fairbanks, Alaska. During the opening day of the conference Amy Goodman interviewed Sarah and I for a segment on Democracy Now. There, I participated in a contemporary art exhibition ‘(Re–) Cycles of Paradise’ organized by ARTPORT in partnership with Global Gender and Climate Alliance, where I presented a photo–video installation to highlight Sarah James’ work. That exhibition is currently being shown at the Centro Cultural de España in Mexico City through January 16 (will overlap with COP16 in Cancún).

While in Copenhagen, we stayed at a small hotel where each day we would gather at the lobby with other fellow indigenous activists including musician Robby Romero and his daughter, singer Dakota René of the Eagle Thunder Entertainment. Robby asked me have you heard about REDD? He told me a whole bunch of things about it but with all the commotion of the conference I came back with little understanding of what REDD actually is, except that the indigenous communities around the world regard it as the “largest land grab of all time.” While the conference resulted in failure, it gave birth to what has come to be known as the Climate Justice Movement.

So here is REDD from two different perspectives.

REDD According to the United Nations
Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation

REDD is a program that was conceived by the United Nations and launched in September 2008 with expertise of UN Food and Agriculture Organization (UNFAO), UN Development Programme (UNDP) and UN Environment Programme (UNEP).

According to UN–REDD website: “Deforestation and forest degradation, through agricultural expansion, conversion to pastureland, infrastructure development, destructive logging, fires etc., account for nearly 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions, more than the entire global transportation sector and second only to the energy sector.” The webpage continues, “(REDD) is an effort to create a financial value for the carbon stored in forests, offering incentives for developing countries to reduce emissions from forested lands and invest in low-carbon paths to sustainable development. REDD+ goes beyond deforestation and forest degradation, and includes the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks.”

Map Courtesy UN-REDD Programme

UN website also states, “The Programme currently has 29 partner countries spanning Africa, Asia–Pacific and Latin America, of which 12 are receiving support to National Programme activities.”

Let me explain in simple terms what it means. You may have noticed in the UN description, the line, “to create a financial value for the carbon stored in forests.” Whenever there is value there is money that can be exchanged. Say a company in Global North, take BP for example want to continue their carbon emissions, but they want to offset it to reduce their net carbon footprint, then they can buy carbon credit through REDD, in the process some forest in Global South say, Indonesia would be saved while BP continues business–as–usual.

What could be wrong with such a well meaning and benign scenario to save the planet from climate change disasters?

On November 25 UN–REDD Program released a Newsletter with success stories and plans for the Cancún conference that you can check out here.

REDD According to the Indigenous Forest Communities
Reaping profits from Evictions, land grabs, Deforestation and Destruction of biodiversity

Illustration Courtesy Indigenous Environmental Network

On November 26 Global Forest Coalition and Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN) issued a joint press release. It states, “Indigenous and environmental rights groups warn that an agreement on REDD at the upcoming UN climate change conference in Cancún, Mexico will spell disaster for forest peoples worldwide, limiting the rights of indigenous and peasant people over their territories. The real solution, the groups argue, is for developed countries to reduce fossil fuel emissions at the source.”

Tom Goldtooth, Executive Director of IEN said, “Yes we need to stop rampant deforestation—but REDD will neither protect forests nor reduce dangerous pollution. REDD will allow polluting industries to avoid reducing emissions through offsets from trees and other so–called ‘environmental services.’ From an indigenous and human rights perspective, REDD could criminalize the very peoples who protect and rely on forests for their livelihood, with no guarantees for enforceable safeguards. REDD is promoting what could be the biggest land grab of all time.”

IEN with endorsements from numerous human rights and environmental justice organizations published a detailed 40–page report [pdf] explaining every aspects of the REDD and REDD+ initiatives. The report is filled with references as well as illustrations and photos. I’ll quote a few key points from that report, but I’ll not be able to do justice to such a detailed report with just a few hundred words here. My hope is that perhaps you’ll be curious to read the full report when you have time.

REDD and Permits to Pollute
“Carbon Markets buy and sell permits to pollute called allowances and carbon credits. Carbon markets have two parts: emissions trading (also called cap and trade) and offsets. They are false solutions to climate change because they do not bring about the changes needed to keep fossil fuels in the ground. They claim to solve the climate crisis but really allow polluters to buy their way out of reducing their emissions.”

REDD is CO2lonialism of Forests
“It allows Northern polluters to buy permits to pollute or carbon credits by promising not to cut down forests and plantations in the South. There are hundreds of REDD–type pilot projects in the world and, many of them violate Indigenous Peoples’ rights and have resulted in militarization, evictions, fraud, disputes, conflicts, corruption, coercion, conmen, crime, plantations, and 30–100 year contracts and deals with oil companies and other climate criminals.”

REDD Means Loss of Land and Evictions
“REDD could drive land speculation and result in massive land grabs in the name of saving the climate. It could result in violations of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In fact UN admits that REDD could: criminalize indigenous agriculture and lifestyles, violate indigenous peoples’ rights, lock–up forests and marginalize the landless.”

Scientific American reported last year, “Interpol has warned that unscrupulous entities plan to profit from REDD: their methods could include expelling an indigenous people from their forest to acquire legal title over it.”

“UNEP funded Mau Carbon Forest Project in Kenya is a humanitarian crisis in the making. Due to this project more than 20,000 Ogiek people face eviction from their ancestral land. Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga announced that every single Ogiek would be facing arrest if they did not voluntarily abandon their ancestral lands in the Mau Forest region of Kenya—where the Ogiek have lived for centuries. Ogiek could become REDD refugees but they have vowed to resist any move to evict them.”

REDD and Militarization
“REDD could foster a ‘armed protection’ mentality that could lead to the displacement of millions of forest–dependent people, including by force: armed guards for pilot projects, remote sensors in forests and satellite surveillance of forests.”

Interpol has stated, “If there are indigenous people involved, there’s threats and violence against those people.” This is already happening. Abelie Wape, an Indigenous leader from Kamula Doso in Papua New Guinea, was forced at gunpoint to sign away the carbon rights to the forest. Kamula Doso is one of the most controversial of the REDD projects currently being set up anywhere in the world.

REDD and Oil Companies
An IEN press release ‘Shell bankrolls REDD’ states, “Oil giant Shell, infamous for the genocide of the Ogoni People and environmental destruction in Nigeria’s Niger Delta is now bankrolling REDD.” Renowned Nigerian environmentalist Nnimmo Bassey, Director of Environmental Rights Action and Chair of Friends of the Earth International, wrote, “We have suffered Shell’s destruction of communities and biodiversity as well as oil spills and illegal gas flaring for decades. Now we can add financing REDD for greenwash and profits to the long list of Shell’s atrocities.”

“Shell, Gazprom (Russian oil–and–gas giant) and the Clinton Foundation are funding the landmark REDD Rimba Raya project on 100,000 ha (250,000 acres) in the province of Central Kalimantan in Indonesia. REDD allows polluters like Shell, Rio Tinto and Chevron–Texaco to buy their way out of reducing their greenhouse gas emissions at source by supposedly conserving forests.”

In case you missed, Shell is also right now pressuring the Obama administration to give them the permit to go drill in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas of Arctic Alaska that the Inupiat indigenous communities oppose as they fear it’ll destroy their homeland and culture.

REDD and GMO Trees
“The UNFCCC allows GMO trees to be used to generate carbon credits. Genetically Modified Trees are trees whose genetic material has been modified in a laboratory for rapid growth or to make it easier to produce agrofuels from wood. Trees are also genetically modified to increase pollution absorption and consequently to sell more permits to pollute. GMO Trees are very dangerous because they can contaminate natural forests just like GMO corn has contaminated natural corn.”

REDD and Conservation NGOs
REDD has controversial support from many powerful U.S. conservation NGOs including, World Wildlife Fund, The Nature Conservancy, Conservational International, Environmental Defense, National Wildlife Federation, Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, Wildlife Conservation Society and others.

Not the First Time—Conservation, Forced Eviction and Militarization

Historian Karl Jacoby of Brown University wrote an influential book a few years ago titled, “Crimes Against Nature: Squatters, Poachers, Thieves and the Hidden History of American Conservation.” In the book Jacoby writes about the dark history of American conservation and that during the mid and late 19th century how conservation of lands criminalized inhabitants. In a short order, ‘land dwellers’ were labeled ‘squatters’; ‘hunters’ to ‘poachers’; and ‘gatherers’ to ‘thieves.’

In one chapter Jacoby writes about the formation of the first National Park—the Yellowstone National Park. Euro–American conservationists told the American public that areas of the Yellowstone plateau had never been trodden by human footsteps. Quite the contrary—in reality five tribes, Crow, Shoshone, Bannock, Blackfeet, and Nez Perce actively hunted in the Yellowstone plateau. Yellowstone National Park was established in 1872. U.S. Military was brought in to run the park. In fact few Americans may know that the U.S. military ran the Yellowstone National Park for 32 years. Prominent conservationists of the time including the influential John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club supported the militarization of the U.S. public lands. Their job was to protect vulnerable tourists from the threat of dangerous Native Americans. In the process they protected the land by taking it away from the ‘people of the land.’

Trust–and–Partnership: A Seat at the Table?

During UNFCC Convention in Bali indigenous people protested the fact that they were shut out from the negotiations even though it is their land that UN was considering for carbon offsets | Courtesy Global Justice Ecology Project

I’ll now return to Kate Sheppard’s statement about “building trust and partnership between nations.” To build trust we must first talk—maybe we sit around in a circle and tell stories, or we sit around at a table and tell stories. Did UN give the indigenous peoples a sit at the table about REDD?

In an article published earlier this year in the Indian Country Today, Tom Goldtooth writes about his experience of Copenhagen where he went with a delegation of 12 Native people from U.S. and Canada, “Maintaining indigenous peoples’ participation inside the Bella Center was very important during the waning hours of the conference to ensure the rights of indigenous peoples would be recognized in the Accord (Copenhagen Accord). This did not happen. Neither human rights language nor the rights of indigenous peoples were recognized in the Accord.”

Earlier this year UN released a 222–page report tilted, “State of the World’s Indigenous Peoples.” The report states, “Millions of people around the world who belong to indigenous communities continue to face discrimination and abuse at the hands of authorities and private business concerns.” Inter Press Service reporting on the release stated, “The report’s chapter dealing with environmental issues suggests that most of the deforestation is taking place on indigenous territories due to massive operations by mining corporations. It says many of the business ventures on native lands are illegal.”

Euro–American conservationists protected vulnerable tourists by evicting the Native Americans nearly a century and half ago from the Yellowstone plateau. The question now arises—will the UN and influential conservation NGOs repeat the same episode but at a much larger global scale—by evicting the ‘people of the land’ to protect vulnerable kingdoms—BPdom, Shelldom, Exxondom, Americadom? Is Global North attempting to impose an order on the Global South, but for whose benefit?

We’ve just come to know for whose benefit. On Sunday Guardian reported “Some of the world’s largest oil, mining, car and gas corporations will make hundreds of millions of dollars from a UN-backed forest protection scheme (REDD), according to a new report from the Friends of the Earth International.”

I’ve worked on Arctic Alaska issues for nearly a decade. I see conservation and human rights organizations have been working hand–in–hand and shoulder–to–shoulder to achieve a common vision of conservation that honors both ecological and indigenous human cultures against destructive oil and gas development projects. So why is there such an unfathomable gap between the conservation and the indigenous communities about REDD? Is it because industrialized and industrializing nations will not significantly reduce their carbon emissions, fossil fuel companies will continue with business–as–usual with drilling and mining in more dangerous territories, and we will not reduce our carbon footprint to anything meaningful—so taking away the last remaining forests from the indigenous dwellers and giving the credits back to the polluters is the most expedient and the easiest road we can take to tackle climate change? Or by supporting REDD the conservation organizations will gain valuable dollars from the polluters for important conservation work or the worst of all they could care less about the indigenous communities of the Global South? How would anyone who is supporting REDD feel if they’re evicted from their home—actually it’s been happening a lot in U.S. with the real–estate collapse and no one likes it. So why would we support REDD?

Forests are dying all over the world at an unprecedented rate due to climate change—hundreds of millions of trees are dead—I wrote about it this summer. This is causing a lot of stress to the indigenous communities. Is this the time to tinker with trading carbons by taking away the forests from the indigenous inhabitants and then selling the credits to the polluters—or is it possible to develop a common global vision of moving away from fossil fuel altogether and working with forest dwellers on sustainable solutions? It is a moral question that we must answer. And that I’d call trust–and–partnership.

Here are some last words from Tom Goldtooth: “Everyone who cares about our future, forests, Indigenous Peoples and human rights should reject REDD because it is irremediably flawed, cannot be fixed and because, despite efforts to develop safeguards for its implementation, REDD will always be potentially genocidal.”

Copyright 2010 Subhankar Banerjee

Article source: GJEP Climate Connections Blog

español debajo

Statement of Concern from the Indigenous Environmental Network

What Happened to the Text from the Cochabamba’s People’s Accord?

Media Contacts:

IEN media hotline: +52 998 108 0748

Email: ienCop16media@gmail.com

As indigenous peoples, we are extremely concerned that the principles agreed upon in the Cochabamba People’s Agreement have been unilaterally removed from the negotiating document that was released on November 24^th. Equally alarming is the misrepresentation of the Copenhagen Accord as a legitimate path forward, despite its widespread denouncement by civil society and its tepid reception last December in Denmark, when the United Nations merely “took note of” it.

“Cochabamba emphasized human rights,” said Alberto Saldamando, legal council for the International Indian Treaty Council. “Copenhagen advocated avarice. In Cochabamba, global civil society condemned a market approach that does nothing to address climate change and only threatens the most vulnerable. The disappearance of the Cochabamba text from the current working document sends an unfortunate signal about what we can expect from this COP.”

Beyond the lack of transparency in the process, a key concern with the Copenhagen document is its blanket support for REDD (Reduction of Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation). REDD, while it will allow industrial polluters to continue their practices virtually unabated, also threatens indigenous and land-based peoples with eviction and marginalization. It contains no safeguards, no guarantee of rights, and a disturbing array of potential governance challenges. Our interventions in this week’s climate negotiations will focus on these challenges.

 Indigenous Environmental Network will move forward advocating four principles of climate justice:

1. Leave Fossil Fuels in the Ground
2. Real and Effective Solutions based in equity and justice
3. Industrialized Countries must take Responsibility
4. Living in a Good Way on the Earth

COMUNICADO DE PRENSA
 
QUÉ: Las comunidades indígenas del todo el mundo saben que nuestra sobrevivencia como seres humanos está por acabar, y por esto han movilizado cientos de comunidades de todo el mundo con muchos otros movimientos sociales a asistir a la 16ª Conferencia de los Partidos sobre el Marco Convenio sobre el Cambio Climático de la Organización de las Naciones Unidas.
 
Siguen-nos en nuestro sitio de Internet multimedia, con el enfoque de las voces indígenas negociando para las soluciones reales - y no soluciones falsas.
 
Con voces de jóvenes, mujeres , grupos indigenas y mucho más. Va a ver un programa en vivo de video y audio, cada día al mediodía, de una hora, hora de Cancún. A las 2 pm estará disponible para bajar. Los anfitriones son Casey Camp Horinek and Dallas Goldtooth.
 
QUIEN: La Red Indígena Ambiental (Indigenous Environmental Network, o IEN por sus siglas en ingles), en colaboración con el Proyecto para la Justicia Ecológica Global (Global Justice Ecology Project o GJEP por sus siglas en ingles), Abya Yala Nexus y Earth Cycles. Organizadores comunitarias para la justicia ambiental y comunidades impactadas por las industrias petroleras y el cambio climático.
 
DONDE: http://www.RedRoadCancun.com
CUANDO: Lunes, 29 de noviembre al 10 de diciembre del 2010. Cada día al mediodía, del lunes al viernes, de una hora, hora de Cancún - y lo re-transmitiremos a las 5 pm (1700h).
 
Contacto de Medios:
IEN Medios: +52 998 108 0748
Correo Electrónico: IENcop16media@gmail.com

-30-

Article source: GJEP Climate Connections Blog

 - Jeff Conant

Monday morning, the opening day of COP 16 in Cancun: with the inaugural session opening any minute, a climate justice press conference scheduled for the same time, and any number of fast-paced plans for the day and the week, I write from a bus loaded with delegates stuck in traffic miles from the Moon Palace, where the COP 16 official events will be taking place. From this vantage point – not entirely unexpected – it’s difficult to imagine that anybody will be able to attend the COP in a meaningful way, let alone participate in it. The traffic jam – and the inability of the Mexican hosts to provide a clear way forward to arrive at the venue – provides an apt metaphor for the negotiation process itself.

The road to climate justice?

Late last week, the negotiating text – the key document to be developed around which the entire dog and pony show revolves – was delivered by the head of the COP to the government delegations. It was only then that delegates learned – to the dismay of many – that an entirely new version of the document had been drafted, with all reference to the hard-won principles of the Cochabamba Agreement stripped.

As an aid to memory: last December in Copenhagen, after long weeks of stalemate, a last minute agreement was forced through by a small cabal of nations led by the U.S. and China. Known as the Copenhagen Accord, the non-binding document was widely decried; the immediate response of the Bolivian government – recognized as the leading government voice against neoliberal market solutions to the climate crisis and favor of rights-based approaches – was to call for a People’s Summit, where social movements and civil society would respond be creating a legitimate document to move the negotiations toward solutions based in the popular will and a real recognition of ecological limits.

The Cochabamba Peoples Summit on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth, convened in April of this year, brought together 35,000 civil society and government delegates in a process that was celebrated as both transparent and profoundly participatory, and which – to the apparent amazement of all attending – resulted in the Cochambamba People’s Agreement, a solid framework that denounced market-based approaches and put forward an array of solutions based in equity, justice, and the principles of ecology.

That document was then submitted to the U.N. and adopted into the official negotiating text. But the text for negotiating in Cancun, submitted to Parties on November 24, contained not a whiff of the popular sentiments concensed on in Cochabamba. Indeed, the new text appears to erase agreements struggled for since at least COP 13 in Bali in 2007, setting the already intractably mired negotiations back by years.

The Bolivian government denounced the bait and switch last week; this morning, both Via Campesina and the Indigenous Environmental Network issued strong statements in protest. In IEN’s statement, Alberto Saldamando, legal counsel for the International Indian Treaty Council, said, “Cochabamba emphasized human rights. Copenhagen advocates avarice. In Cochabamba, global civil society condemned a market approach that does nothing to address climate change and only threatens the most vulnerable. The disappearance of the Cochabamba text from the current working document sends an unfortunate signal about what we can expect from this COP.”

If the traffic ever clears up and allows delegates to actually reach the Moon Palace – we’ll begin to see what the internal reaction is to the hijacking of the Cochabamba Agreement. Without doubt, on the outside, civil society won’t be pleased with what results…or doesn’t.…

Fortunately, it is ultimately civil society – that is, all of us – that will provide the real way forward.

Article source: GJEP Climate Connections Blog

Climate Justice Now! Statement on Climate Change from COP-15, Copenhagen, December 2009

Corrupt Copenhagen ‘accord’ exposes gulf between peoples demands and elite political interests

The highly anticipated UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen ended with a fraudulent agreement, engineered by the United States and dropped into the conference at the last moment.  The “agreement” was not adopted.  Instead, it was “noted” in an absurd parliamentary invention designed to accommodate the United States and permit Ban Ki-moon to utter the ridiculous pronouncement “We have a deal.”

The UN conference was unable to deliver solutions to the climate crisis, or even minimal progress toward them.  Instead, the talks were a complete betrayal of impoverished nations and island states, producing nothing but embarrassment for the United Nations and the Danish government.  In a conference designed to limit greenhouse gas emissions there was very little talk of emission reductions.  Rich, developed countries continued to delay any talk of drastic reductions, instead shifting the burden to less developed countries and showing no willingness to make reparations for the damage they have caused.

The Climate Justice Now! coalition, alongside other networks, was united here at COP15 in the call for System Change, Not Climate Change.  In contrast, the Copenhagen climate conference itself demonstrated that real solutions, as opposed to false, market-based solutions, will not be adopted until we overcome the existing unjust political and economic system.

Government and corporate elites here in Copenhagen made no attempt to satisfy the expectations of the world.  False solutions and corporations completely co-opted the United Nations process.  The global elite would like to privatize the atmosphere through carbon markets; carve up the remaining forests, bushes and grasslands of the world through the abandonment of indigenous rights and land-grabbing; convert real forests into monoculture tree plantations and agricultural soils into carbon sinks; and complete the capitalist enclosure of commons.  Virtually every proposal discussed in Copenhagen was based on a desire to create opportunities for profit rather than to reduce emissions.

The only discussions of real solutions in Copenhagen took place in social movements. Climate Justice Now!, Climate Justice Action and Klimaforum09 articulated many creative ideas and attempted to deliver those ideas to the UN Climate Change Conference through the Klimaforum09 People’s Declaration and the Reclaim Power People’s Assembly.  Among nations, the ALBA countries, many African nations and AOSIS often echoed the messages of the climate justice movement, speaking of the need to repay climate debt, create mitigation and adaptation funds outside of neoliberal institutions like the World Bank and IMF, and keep global temperature increase below 1.5 degrees.

The UN and the Danish government served the interests of the rich, industrialized countries, excluding our voices and the voices of the least powerful throughout the world, and attempting to silence our demands to talk about real solutions.  Nevertheles, our voices grew stronger and more united day by day during the two-week conference.  As we grew stronger, the mechanisms implemented by the UN and the Danish for the inclusion of civil society grew more dysfunctional, repressive and undemocratic, very much like the WTO and Davos.  Social movement participation was limited throughout the conference, drastically curtailed in week two, and several civil society organizations even had their admission credentials revoked midway through the second week.  At the same time, corporations continued lobbying inside the Bella Center.

Outside the conference, the Danish police extended the repressive framework, launching a massive clampdown on the right to free expression and arresting and beating thousands, including civil society delegates to the climate conference.  Our movement overcame this repression to raise our voices in protest over and over again.  Our demonstrations mobilized more than 100,000 people in Denmark to press for climate justice, while social movements around the world mobilized hundreds of thousands more in local climate justice demonstrations.  In spite of repression by the Danish government and exclusion by the United Nations, the movement for system change not climate change is now stronger than when we arrived in Denmark.

While Copenhagen has been a disaster for climate solutions, it has been an inspiring watershed moment in the battle for climate justice.  The governments of the elite have no solutions to offer, but the climate justice movement has provided strong vision and clear alternatives.  Copenhagen will be remembered as an historic event for global social movements.  It will be remembered, along with Seattle and Cancun, as a critical moment when the diverse agendas of many social movements coalesced and became stronger, asking in one voice for system change, not climate change.

The Climate Justice Now! coalition calls for social movements around the world to mobilize in support of climate justice.

We will take our struggle forward not just in climate talks, but on the ground and in the streets, to promote genuine solutions that include:

- leaving fossil fuels in the ground and investing instead in appropriate energy-efficiency and safe, clean and community-led renewable energy

- radically reducing wasteful consumption, first and foremost in the North, but also by Southern elites.

- huge financial transfers from North to South, based on the repayment of climate debts and subject to democratic control. The costs of adaptation and mitigation should be paid for by redirecting military budgets, progressive and innovative taxes and debt cancellation.

- rights-based resource conservation that enforces Indigenous land rights and promotes peoples’ sovereignty over energy, forests, land and water.

sustainable family farming and fishing, and peoples’ food sovereignty.

We are committed to building a diverse movement – locally and globally – for a better world.

Article source: GJEP Climate Connections Blog

Poznan statement from the Climate Justice Now! alliance

12 December 2008

Members of Climate Justice Now! – a worldwide alliance of more than 160 organisations — have been in Poznan for the past two weeks closely following developments in the UN climate negotiations.

This statement is our assessment of the Conference of Parties (COP) 14, and articulates our principles for achieving climate justice.

THE URGENCY OF CLIMATE JUSTICE

We will not be able to stop climate change if we don’t change the neo-liberal and corporate-based economy which stops us from achieving sustainable societies. Corporate globalisation must be stopped.

The historical responsibility for the vast majority of greenhouse gas emissions lies with the industrialised countries of the North. Even though the primary responsibility of the North to reduce emissions has been recognised in the Convention, their production and consumption habits continue to threaten the survival of humanity and biodiversity. It is imperative that the North urgently shifts to a low carbon economy. At the same time in order to avoid the damaging carbon intensive model of industrialisation, the South is entitled to resources and technology to make this transition.

We believe that any ´shared vision´ on addressing the climate crisis must start with climate justice and with a radical re-thinking of the dominant development model.

Indigenous Peoples, peasant communities, fisherfolk, and especially women in these communities, have been living harmoniously and sustainably with the Earth for millennia. They are not only the most affected by climate change, but also its false solutions, such as agrofuels, mega-dams, genetic modification, tree plantations and carbon offset schemes. Instead of market led schemes, their sustainable practices should be seen as offering the real solutions to climate change.

UNFCCC IN CRISIS

Governments and international institutions have to recognise that the Kyoto mechanisms have failed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The principles of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) – common but differentiated responsibilities, inter-generational equity, and polluter pays — have been undermined in favour of market mechanisms. The three main pillars of the Kyoto agreement –the clean development mechanism, joint implementation and emissions trading schemes — have been completely ineffective in reducing emissions, yet they continue to be at the center of the negotiations.

Kyoto is based on carbon-trading mechanisms which allow Northern countries to continue business as usual by paying for “clean development” projects in developing and transition countries. This is a scheme designed deliberately to allow polluters to avoid reducing emissions domestically. Clean development mechanism projects, which are supposed to support “sustainable development”, include infrastructure projects such as big dams and coal-fired power plants, and monoculture tree plantations. Not only do these projects fail to reduce carbon emissions, they accelerate the privatisation and corporate take-over of the natural world, at the expense of local communities and Indigenous Peoples.

Proposals on the table in Poznan are heading in the same direction.

In the current negotiations, industrialised countries continue to act on the basis of self-interest, using all their negotiating tactics to avoid their obligations to reduce carbon emissions, to finance adaptation and mitigation and transfer technology to the South.

In their pursuit of growth at any cost, many Southern governments at the talks are trading away the rights of their peoples and resources. We remind them that a climate agreement is not a trade agreement.

The main protagonists for climate stability – Indigenous Peoples, women, peasant and family farmers, fisherfolk, forest dependent communities, youth, and marginalised and affected communities in the global South and North, are systematically excluded. Despite repeated demands, Indigenous Peoples are not recognised as an official party to the negotiations. Neither are women’s voices and gender considerations recognised and included in the process.

At the same time, private investors are circling the talks like vultures, swooping in on every opportunity for creating new profits. Business and corporate lobbyists expanded their influence and monopolized conference space at Poznan. At least 1500 industry lobbyists were present either as NGOs or as members of government delegations.

The Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) scheme could create the climate regime’s largest ever loophole, giving Northern polluters yet another opportunity to buy their way out of emissions reductions. With no mention of biodiversity or Indigenous Peoples’ rights, this scheme might give a huge incentive for countries to sell off their forests, expel Indigenous and peasant communities, and transform forests into tree plantations under corporate-control. Plantations are not forests. Privatisation and dispossession through REDD or any other mechanisms must be stopped.

The World Bank is attempting to carve a niche in the international climate change regime. This is unacceptable as the Bank continues to fund polluting industries and drive deforestation by promoting industrial logging and agrofuels. The Bank’s recently launched Climate Investment Funds goes against government initiatives at the UN and promotes dirty industries such as coal, while forcing developing countries into the fundamentally unequal aid framework of donor and recipient. The World Bank Forest Carbon Partnership Facility aiming to finance REDD through a forest carbon mechanism serves the interest of private companies and opens the path for commodification of forests.

These developments are to be expected. Market ideology has totally infiltrated the climate talks, and the UNFCCC negotiations are now like trade fairs hawking investment opportunities.

THE REAL SOLUTIONS

Solutions to the climate crisis will not come from industrialised countries and big business. Effective and enduring solutions will come from those who have protected the environment – Indigenous Peoples, women, peasant and family farmers, fisherfolk, forest dependent communities, youth and marginalised and affected communities in the global South and North. These include:

• Achieving low carbon economies, without resorting to offsetting and false solutions such as nuclear energy and “clean coal”, while protecting the rights of those affected by the transition, especially workers.
• Keeping fossil fuels in the ground.
• Implementing people’s food and energy sovereignty.
• Guaranteeing community control of natural resources.
• Re-localisation of production and consumption, prioritising local markets
• Full recognition of Indigenous Peoples, peasant and local community rights,
• Democratically controlled clean renewable energy.
• Rights based resource conservation that enforces indigenous land rights and promotes peoples sovereignty and public ownership over energy, forests, seeds, land and water
• Ending deforestation and its underlying causes.
• Ending excessive consumption by elites in the North and in the South.
• Massive investment in public transport
• Ensuring gender justice by recognising existing gender injustices and involving women in decision making.
• Cancelling illegitimate debts claimed by northern governments and IFIs. The illegitimacy of these debts is underscored by the much greater historical, social and ecological debts owed to people of the South.

We stand at the crossroads. We call for a radical change in direction to put climate justice and people’s rights at the centre of these negotiations.

In the lead-up to the 2009 COP 15 at Copenhagen and beyond, the Climate Justice Now! alliance will continue to monitor governments and to mobilise social forces from the south and the north to achieve climate justice.

For more information on CJN contact Nicola Bullard at n.bullard@focusweb.org or Juana Camacho at deuda@censat.org

Article source: GJEP Climate Connections Blog

Source: Climate Justice Now! listserv

Espanol debajo

November 27, 2010 – At the next meeting of the Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP 16), which begins November 29th in Cancun, Mexico, the 192 member states must agree on a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol.

However, on November 24th, the President of the Ad-Hoc Working group on Long-Term Action issued a new document that attempts to legitimize the “Copenhagen Accord,” which the United Nations merely “took note of” last December in Denmark.

This new document put forth by the President of the Ad-Hoc Working Group, instead taking into account the proposals of all the parties put forth during the process of negotiations, downplays the need for a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. It was developed under no mandate from the parties, and promotes emissions reductions by all countries without clearly distinguishing between developed countries and developing countries, leaving aside the fundamental principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” among nations.

Like the Copenhagen Accord, the document promotes a stabilization of the rise in temperature to 2 degrees Celsius, ignoring the proposals of those who have asserted that the temperature increase should be limited to 1 or 1.5 degrees Celsius. It eliminates all of the proposals of the World People’s Conference that took place last April in Bolivia, such as the recognition of the Rights of Mother Earth and the full application of human rights principles, including the rights of indigenous peoples and climate migrants, in all climate-related actions. Other proposals included the establishment of an International Climate Justice Tribunal and the use of war and defense budgets to by developed countries to address the problem of global warming.

The new document goes even further than the “Copenhagen Accord” by inviting the World Bank to administer the new climate fund, and limiting financing for climate change to 1 billion dollars – ignoring the proposal of the G77 and China to dedicate 1.5% of the GNP of developed countries (the equivalent of 6 billion dollars) to financing climate change and the proposal of Bolivia to use 6% of of the GNP of developed countries.

Said text openly promotes new market mechanisms and the establishment of REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation). These market mechanisms transfer the responsibility to reduce emissions from developed countries to developing countries and, in practice, signify the financing of developed countries by developing countries.

The new document treats forests simply as carbon sinks and does not guarantee the full participation of indigenous peoples and local communities in forest management.

Regarding technology transfer, said text does not recognize the proposal that intellectual property rights should not be an obstacle to effective access to technology needed by developing countries to face climate change.

On the topic of adaptation, it does not consider the institutional framework proposed by developing countries to implement adaptation actions using new and additional sources of financing beyond Official Development Assistance (ODA).

In sum, the new text does not reflect the various proposals of the G77 and China, nor does it take into account the proposals of the World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth, which represent the demands of the more than 35,000 delegates that gathered last April in Cochabamba, Bolivia.

The Plurinational State of Bolivia believes that it is essential to uphold the multilateral process at COP 16 and to avoid the emergence of documents that have not been negotiated, as was the case last year in Copenhagen.

___________________________________________

Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia

Cancún no debe ser un Copenhagen Accord Parte II

27 noviembre 2010 – En la próxima reunión de la Conferencia de las Partes de Naciones Unidas sobre cambio climático (COP 16), que se llevará a cabo del próximo 29 de noviembre al 10 de diciembre en Cancún, México, los 192 países miembros deben acordar el segundo periodo de compromisos de reducción de emisiones de los países desarrollados bajo el Protocolo de Kyoto.

Sin embargo, el pasado 24 de noviembre la Presidenta del Grupo Especial de Cooperación a Largo, ha emitido un nuevo documento que intenta legitimar el “Copenhagen Accord”, del cual Naciones Unidas únicamente tomó nota el pasado diciembre, en Dinamarca.
Este nuevo documento que elaboró la Presidenta de este Grupo de Negociación lejos de tomar en cuenta las propuestas de todas las partes realizadas durante el proceso de negociaciones, minimiza la necesidad de adoptar un segundo periodo de compromisos parar el Protocolo de Kyoto.  Este texto, que se elaboró sin ningún mandato de las partes, promueve ofertas de reducción de todos los países sin distinguir claramente entre países desarrollados y países en vías de desarrollados, desconociendo el principio fundamental de responsabilidades comunes pero diferenciadas entre ambos tipos de países.

Así mismo, al igual que el “Copenhagen Accord”, este documento promueve la estabilización de la temperatura en 2º C desconociendo las propuestas de quienes plantean que el límite debería ser 1,5º C o 1º C, y elimina todas las propuestas de la Conferencia Mundial de los Pueblos realizada en Bolivia como ser el reconocimiento  de los Derechos de la Madre Tierra, la plena aplicación de los derechos humanos, de los derechos indígenas y de los migrantes climáticos en todas las acciones relativas al cambio climático, el establecimiento de un Tribunal Internacional de Justicia Climática, y la importancia de destinar todo el presupuesto para la defensa y la guerra de los países desarrollados para atender los graves problemas del calentamiento global.

El nuevo documento incluso va más allá del “Copenhagen Accord” e invita al Banco Mundial a ser el administrador del nuevo fondo climático, y limita la cifra de financiamiento para el cambio climático a “movilizar” 100.000 millones de dólares sin tomar en cuenta la propuesta del G77+China de 1,5 % del PNB de los países desarrollados que es equivalente a 600.000 millones de dólares o la propuesta de Bolivia del 6% del PNB de los países desarrollados.

Así mismo, dicho texto promueve abiertamente nuevos mecanismos de mercado y el establecimiento del mecanismo REDD+ (Reducción de Emisiones por Degradación y Deforestación).  Estos mecanismos de mercado transfieren las responsabilidades de reducción de los países desarrollados a los países en desarrollo y representan en la práctica mecanismos de financiamiento de los países en vías de desarrollo a los países desarrollados.
Este nuevo documento considera los bosques como simples sumideros de carbono y no garantiza la plena participación y gestión de los pueblos indígenas y comunidades locales sobre los bosques.

Sobre transferencia de tecnología, dicho texto no recoge la propuesta de que los derechos de Propiedad Intelectual son un obstáculo para el efectivo acceso a la tecnología que necesitan los países en desarrollo para enfrentar el cambio climático.

Asimismo, para temas de adaptación no considera los marcos institucionales que los países en desarrollo proponen para implementar acciones de adaptación con fuentes de financiamiento nuevas y adicionales a la Ayuda Oficial al Desarrollo.

En síntesis el nuevo texto no refleja varias propuestas realizadas por el G77+China y  no toma en cuenta las principales propuestas de la “Primera Conferencia Mundial de los Pueblos sobre cambio climático y los Derechos de la Madre Tierra”, que recogió  los planteamientos de más de 35.000 delgados reunidos el pasado abril en la ciudad de Cochabamba, Bolivia.

El Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia considera que es fundamental mantener el proceso multilateral en la COP 16 evitando  la aparición de documentos que no son negociados por todas las partes tal como ocurrió en Copenhaguen.

Article source: GJEP Climate Connections Blog

[On the Media Co-op]

First edition highlights community struggles and makes the links between climate and social justice

At the fourth annual Everyone’s Downstream conference, Climate Justice Montreal and members of the provisional comittee for the foundation of the Climate Justice Co-op, launched a new publication entitled Beyond Parts Per Million: Voices from the Frontlines.

Featuring accounts from frontline communities around the globe and connecting climate and social justice struggles, this project aims to amplify the voices of those people most impacted by environmental destruction and a changing global climate.

DOWNLOAD IT!

Published in Huntington News, November 25th, 2010 | http://bit.ly/hQM4rI

By Cory Morningstar: Canadians for Action on Climate Change and Joan Russow: Global Compliance Research Project

The world’s most vulnerable atolls in the Ocean Pacific are slowly disappearing below the rising oceans and have been for a long time. Pleas for those on the front lines of climate change have been ignored:

“Two South Pacific islands have disappeared beneath the waves, as climate change raises sea levels to new heights. They are Tebua Tarawa and Abanuea – which ironically means “the beach which is long-lasting” – in the island state of Kiribati.” – BBC News, June 14th, 1999

“Kiribati’s President: Our Lives Are At Stake” – ABC News, April 2nd, 2007

“Tiny atoll in Pacific cries out for help” – The Times of India, June 6th, 2008

“Paradise lost: climate change forces South Sea islanders to seek sanctuary abroad” – The Independent, June 6th, 2010

The Tarawa Climate Change Conference (TCCC), took place from November 9th -11th in Tarawa, Kiribati, a highly threatened atoll in the Ocean Pacific. It concluded with the release of the Ambo Declaration that was endorsed by Australia, Brazil, China, Cuba, Fiji, Japan, Kiribati, Maldives, Republic of the Marshall Islands, New Zealand, Solomon Islands, and Tonga. Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom, attended the conference as observers, yet did not sign the declaration. With observer status states are able to participate in the deliberation process.

On November 17th, 2010: a new study published by Maplecroft, rated 183 countries on their CO2 emissions from energy use and identified Australia (#2), USA (#3), Canada (#4) as three of the top six nations guilty of the worst performance in relation to CO2emissions. Furthermore the group of 6 are the only countries rated as ‘extreme risk’ by Maplecroft on the basis of their high CO2 emissions from energy use. The tons of carbon emissions per capita for these countries are as follows: Australia: 20.82, United States: 19.18 and Canada at 17.27. Compare these amounts to the drowning citizens of Kiribati whose per capita emissions are a mere 0.3 tons.

The speaker of the Kiribati parliament called for the 18 countries taking part in the Tarawa Climate Change Conference to reach a consensus and agree on common goals. But how do vulnerable countries whose goal is simply to survive, find common ground with the participating major Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emitting countries that demand economic growth be allowed to continue under the current economic system – that being the capitalist system – the root cause of climate change in the first place? Such conferences which have the mandate to seek common ground through consensus, more often than not, lead to the lowest common denominator with the voice of those most vulnerable being crushed.

Behind the Veil

Given that Canada, Australia and the United States are three of the highest per capita GHG emitters in the world, as well as being the leading climate change obstructionists within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) processes, it seems reasonable to assume that these three states were in attendance to ensure the vulnerable states would not present a declaration reflecting strong demands at the upcoming climate change conference in Cancun, Mexico. While Canadians understand the consequences of climate change for the world’s most vulnerable, the Canadian Harper minority Government nonetheless muses that climate change is a great opportunity to expand economic growth by further exploiting natural resources in a melting North.

Why was it that the world leaders on climate change such as Bolivia and Tuvalu were not in attendance? The non-participation of Tuvalu, which is one of the most threatened island states, and of Bolivia, which has been at the forefront of climate change negotiations should raise red flags and alarm bells. The fact that these world leaders on climate change were either not invited, or they made a conscious decision not to participate, begs the question if one critical purpose of this conference, in the eyes of the major GHG emitting developed states, was an opportunity to undermine Bolivia, as well as, further isolate Tuvalu’s position.

Relocation Offsets

Kiribati Relocation to Nuclear Fall-out Haven?

Remains of gun built by Japanese, who occupied parts of Kiribati

The small island nation of Kiribati is made up of 33 small atolls, most of which are no more than 6.5 feet above the South Pacific, and it is only a matter of time before most of the country is submerged by the rising sea. “For Kiribati, the tipping point has already occurred,” Schneider said. “As far as they’re concerned, it’s tipped, but they have no economic clout in the world.” – Stanford University climatologist Stephen H. Schneider, June 29th, 2006 – Washington Post

Media reports the conference as ending on a ‘high’. This euphoria could be considered somewhat delusional. [See 18 point declaration with recommendations below]

Prior to the conference, the president of Kiribati had indicated he hoped for a legally binding declaration. He also indicated he rejected the notion of environmental refugees.

“While I always make the point that I reject the notion of environmental refuges I think we want to be prepared for all possible eventualities one which may be the need to reallocate our people.” – President Tong of Kiribati

Yet, given that the declaration is neither legally binding nor does it demand strong percentage emission reductions with strong trajectories and timelines, Kiribati may be left with no other alternative than relocation.

Thus there is a dangerous new precedent: To absolve major GHG emitting states from fulfilling their obligations under the UNFCCC thus leaving no other option but to relocate citizens at risk.

Through their intransigence in refusing to prevent climate change major GHG emitting states have given the vulnerable and developing states an unconscionable option. Is this a modern day revival of the middle age practice of ‘trail by ordeal’? In the middle ages to determine if a person was guilty or innocent – the citizen in question would be thrown into a deep body of water. If the citizen drowned – the citizen was deemed innocent as it was believed that God had received the citizen. If the citizen floated it was believed God had rejected him/her, therefore, the citizen was innocent. In both cases however – the citizen was dead.

A dilemma is imposed upon Kiribati: Either the state of Kiribati accepts that its citizens disappear into the ocean due to fact that major GHG emitting developed states have refused to reduce their GHG emissions under UNFCCC obligations or Kiribati citizens are relocated to the highest point of Kiribati, Christmas Island, where there has been irreversible damage caused by the fallout from the nuclear test explosions. Read the rest of this entry »

Danish Court Sentences Nonviolent Activists Arrested During Protests Against UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen in December 2009:  Free Speech Criminalized

Today, the Copenhagen District Court found Stine Gry Jonassen and Tannie Nyboe guilty in charges of being organisers and instigators of violence and vandalism. The incident took place on 16th of December at Bella Center last year during the climate summit in Copenhagen. The two women were sentenced to four months of probation. One of the judges disagreed with the verdict and thought the accused should be freed of all charges.

Stine Gry and Tannie Nyboe both acted as spokespersons for the Global
Network “Climate Justice Action” (CJA) and Stine was accredited as an official UN Observer through Global Justice Ecology Project.  Both Stine and Tannie are members of Global Justice Ecology Project’s New Voices on Climate Change program.  Find their bios by clicking here

During the Cop15 last year, CJA organised several non-violent civil
disobedience protests, including the “Reclaim Power – Push for Climate
Justice” rally on 16th of December. The two women were both the public
facesof the movement and they are now found guilty in charges of being organisers and instigators of violence and riots. They are both deeply shocked by the outcome of the trial and are now considering an appeal.

Stine Gry considers the whole trial absurd:

*“There has been a clear political rationale with these trials. It is
obvious that Tannie and I were accused because we acted as public faces of the movement. This trial sends a significant message: if you have the nerve to stand up and express a critical point of view of society, the authorities will do whatever they can to silence you. It is absurd that a large public movement as CJA is criminalised because they – as one of the few – dared to criticise the ongoing climate negotiations during the summit; especially in the light of how poorly things turned out with the negotiations and how criticisable Denmark’s role was. The verdict is a defeat for democracy because it hinders politically engaged people in using their democratic right to demonstrate and express themselves critically.” *

Tannie explains:  *“It** is an evident political attempt to limit the opportunity to criticise the negotiations during the summit and the whole bedrock of the climate process. The right to demonstrate is an
essentialpart of democracy, despite it is the existing political
system that is being criticised. I really hope that people will still use their democratic right to express themselves critically, though one might risk being accused personally by the court. However, I fear that this case will scare people from protesting and organising themselves politically in the
future. Consequently it is just as big a defeat for the political work and democracy in Denmark,as it is for us personally.”

For further information, interviews etc. contact the Climate Collective’s
press group:

Phone: (+45) 50 58 87 51

E-mail: media@climatecollective.org

*www.climatecollective.org/push* http://www.climatecollective.org/push

* *

*Background:*

Climate Justice Action (CJA) is a global network of social movements and groups, which mobilised and called out for protests during the climate summit in Copenhagen in December last year, in order to challenge the insubstantial political negotiations at the Bella Centre and demanding just solutions to the climate problems. On 16th of December, CJA organised the demonstration “Reclaim Power – Push for Climate Justice” to give voice to the people mostly affected by climate changes – the same people who were not heard inside the Bella Centre.

At the time, Stine Gry and Tannie were spokespersons for the movement and argued for the right to protest and for the freedom of speech. They are now found guilty in planning the “Reclaim Power” demonstration and of plotting violence against an official in function, of severe vandalism, of serious disturbance of public peace and order, and of illegal trespassing. Several hundred people were arrested in relation to the action, but none of these have since been accused anything illegal.

The trial of the two spokespersons took place in Copenhagen City Court on 6th, 27th, and 28th of October 2010 at 9.30 AM.

Article source: GJEP Climate Connections Blog